Driving without due care and attention
Discussion
Is there Any way you can encourage/MAKE the bib procecute someone for the above offence following an accident.?????
My old dear was forced to stop at the bottom of a slip road, horse box infront of her didn’t have the power to get into a busy lane one so stopped to wait for a gap, so she stopped behind it. She saw a car coming from behind 50-60mph ish, just enough time to close her eyes and bang hit from behind. After 4 days she’s now released from hospital with a crack in her C1 (that’s a bone in top of your neck apparently) had bone fully broken as opposed to crack she would have been paralysed. Both cars written off also.
Anyway I asked attending traffic bib (admittedly not in my most diplomatic tone, while at my mothers hospital bed side) what they were intending to do to the uninjured, at fault driver? No points, just a driver improvement course was there response. Surely in good weather in daylight etc. crashing into the back of a stationary car, which had stopped behind a stationary horse box (not the smallest and most inconspicuous of vehicles) IS at the very least driving without due care and attention. If you wonder in your lane while sending a text, thats without due care. If your glance at the map on the passenger seat, thats without due care.
Am I over reacting cos it was dearest mother who was hit, or has the world gone mad. When it was still unclear if my mothers neck injury was more serious after talking to the bib in A & E I was sorely temped to crash in there T5 volvo parked outside, after all, we could all do with a driver improvement course and that is apparently the appropriate punishment for hitting stationary vehicle.
Would greatly appreciate your opinions on this matter, (even if its to tell me to stop being a numpty)
P.S
At fault driver was young female, was in 56 Plate Citroen, car owned since they passed there test, So less than a year on the road, if given 6 points will have do redo driving test etc. Its what I think should happen.
My old dear was forced to stop at the bottom of a slip road, horse box infront of her didn’t have the power to get into a busy lane one so stopped to wait for a gap, so she stopped behind it. She saw a car coming from behind 50-60mph ish, just enough time to close her eyes and bang hit from behind. After 4 days she’s now released from hospital with a crack in her C1 (that’s a bone in top of your neck apparently) had bone fully broken as opposed to crack she would have been paralysed. Both cars written off also.
Anyway I asked attending traffic bib (admittedly not in my most diplomatic tone, while at my mothers hospital bed side) what they were intending to do to the uninjured, at fault driver? No points, just a driver improvement course was there response. Surely in good weather in daylight etc. crashing into the back of a stationary car, which had stopped behind a stationary horse box (not the smallest and most inconspicuous of vehicles) IS at the very least driving without due care and attention. If you wonder in your lane while sending a text, thats without due care. If your glance at the map on the passenger seat, thats without due care.
Am I over reacting cos it was dearest mother who was hit, or has the world gone mad. When it was still unclear if my mothers neck injury was more serious after talking to the bib in A & E I was sorely temped to crash in there T5 volvo parked outside, after all, we could all do with a driver improvement course and that is apparently the appropriate punishment for hitting stationary vehicle.
Would greatly appreciate your opinions on this matter, (even if its to tell me to stop being a numpty)
P.S
At fault driver was young female, was in 56 Plate Citroen, car owned since they passed there test, So less than a year on the road, if given 6 points will have do redo driving test etc. Its what I think should happen.
Tame Technician said:
Is there Any way you can encourage/MAKE the bib procecute someone for the above offence following an accident.?????
My old dear was forced to stop at the bottom of a slip road, horse box infront of her didn’t have the power to get into a busy lane one so stopped to wait for a gap, so she stopped behind it. She saw a car coming from behind 50-60mph ish, just enough time to close her eyes and bang hit from behind. After 4 days she’s now released from hospital with a crack in her C1 (that’s a bone in top of your neck apparently) had bone fully broken as opposed to crack she would have been paralysed. Both cars written off also.
Anyway I asked attending traffic bib (admittedly not in my most diplomatic tone, while at my mothers hospital bed side) what they were intending to do to the uninjured, at fault driver? No points, just a driver improvement course was there response. Surely in good weather in daylight etc. crashing into the back of a stationary car, which had stopped behind a stationary horse box (not the smallest and most inconspicuous of vehicles) IS at the very least driving without due care and attention. If you wonder in your lane while sending a text, thats without due care. If your glance at the map on the passenger seat, thats without due care.
Am I over reacting cos it was dearest mother who was hit, or has the world gone mad. When it was still unclear if my mothers neck injury was more serious after talking to the bib in A & E I was sorely temped to crash in there T5 volvo parked outside, after all, we could all do with a driver improvement course and that is apparently the appropriate punishment for hitting stationary vehicle.
Would greatly appreciate your opinions on this matter, (even if its to tell me to stop being a numpty)
P.S
At fault driver was young female, was in 56 Plate Citroen, car owned since they passed there test, So less than a year on the road, if given 6 points will have do redo driving test etc. Its what I think should happen.
It's at the discretion of the officer.My old dear was forced to stop at the bottom of a slip road, horse box infront of her didn’t have the power to get into a busy lane one so stopped to wait for a gap, so she stopped behind it. She saw a car coming from behind 50-60mph ish, just enough time to close her eyes and bang hit from behind. After 4 days she’s now released from hospital with a crack in her C1 (that’s a bone in top of your neck apparently) had bone fully broken as opposed to crack she would have been paralysed. Both cars written off also.
Anyway I asked attending traffic bib (admittedly not in my most diplomatic tone, while at my mothers hospital bed side) what they were intending to do to the uninjured, at fault driver? No points, just a driver improvement course was there response. Surely in good weather in daylight etc. crashing into the back of a stationary car, which had stopped behind a stationary horse box (not the smallest and most inconspicuous of vehicles) IS at the very least driving without due care and attention. If you wonder in your lane while sending a text, thats without due care. If your glance at the map on the passenger seat, thats without due care.
Am I over reacting cos it was dearest mother who was hit, or has the world gone mad. When it was still unclear if my mothers neck injury was more serious after talking to the bib in A & E I was sorely temped to crash in there T5 volvo parked outside, after all, we could all do with a driver improvement course and that is apparently the appropriate punishment for hitting stationary vehicle.
Would greatly appreciate your opinions on this matter, (even if its to tell me to stop being a numpty)
P.S
At fault driver was young female, was in 56 Plate Citroen, car owned since they passed there test, So less than a year on the road, if given 6 points will have do redo driving test etc. Its what I think should happen.
vonhosen said:
Tame Technician said:
Is there Any way you can encourage/MAKE the bib procecute someone for the above offence following an accident.?????
My old dear was forced to stop at the bottom of a slip road, horse box infront of her didn’t have the power to get into a busy lane one so stopped to wait for a gap, so she stopped behind it. She saw a car coming from behind 50-60mph ish, just enough time to close her eyes and bang hit from behind. After 4 days she’s now released from hospital with a crack in her C1 (that’s a bone in top of your neck apparently) had bone fully broken as opposed to crack she would have been paralysed. Both cars written off also.
Anyway I asked attending traffic bib (admittedly not in my most diplomatic tone, while at my mothers hospital bed side) what they were intending to do to the uninjured, at fault driver? No points, just a driver improvement course was there response. Surely in good weather in daylight etc. crashing into the back of a stationary car, which had stopped behind a stationary horse box (not the smallest and most inconspicuous of vehicles) IS at the very least driving without due care and attention. If you wonder in your lane while sending a text, thats without due care. If your glance at the map on the passenger seat, thats without due care.
Am I over reacting cos it was dearest mother who was hit, or has the world gone mad. When it was still unclear if my mothers neck injury was more serious after talking to the bib in A & E I was sorely temped to crash in there T5 volvo parked outside, after all, we could all do with a driver improvement course and that is apparently the appropriate punishment for hitting stationary vehicle.
Would greatly appreciate your opinions on this matter, (even if its to tell me to stop being a numpty)
P.S
At fault driver was young female, was in 56 Plate Citroen, car owned since they passed there test, So less than a year on the road, if given 6 points will have do redo driving test etc. Its what I think should happen.
It's at the discretion of the officer.My old dear was forced to stop at the bottom of a slip road, horse box infront of her didn’t have the power to get into a busy lane one so stopped to wait for a gap, so she stopped behind it. She saw a car coming from behind 50-60mph ish, just enough time to close her eyes and bang hit from behind. After 4 days she’s now released from hospital with a crack in her C1 (that’s a bone in top of your neck apparently) had bone fully broken as opposed to crack she would have been paralysed. Both cars written off also.
Anyway I asked attending traffic bib (admittedly not in my most diplomatic tone, while at my mothers hospital bed side) what they were intending to do to the uninjured, at fault driver? No points, just a driver improvement course was there response. Surely in good weather in daylight etc. crashing into the back of a stationary car, which had stopped behind a stationary horse box (not the smallest and most inconspicuous of vehicles) IS at the very least driving without due care and attention. If you wonder in your lane while sending a text, thats without due care. If your glance at the map on the passenger seat, thats without due care.
Am I over reacting cos it was dearest mother who was hit, or has the world gone mad. When it was still unclear if my mothers neck injury was more serious after talking to the bib in A & E I was sorely temped to crash in there T5 volvo parked outside, after all, we could all do with a driver improvement course and that is apparently the appropriate punishment for hitting stationary vehicle.
Would greatly appreciate your opinions on this matter, (even if its to tell me to stop being a numpty)
P.S
At fault driver was young female, was in 56 Plate Citroen, car owned since they passed there test, So less than a year on the road, if given 6 points will have do redo driving test etc. Its what I think should happen.
horse-box driver should get driving without due care too
maybe more so
car that hit from behind is looking at the vehicles coming up the motorway, not expecting everyone to stop
lesson: leave a big gap when on a slip road behind a potentially slow vehicle like a truck or someone towing a trailer
maybe more so
car that hit from behind is looking at the vehicles coming up the motorway, not expecting everyone to stop
lesson: leave a big gap when on a slip road behind a potentially slow vehicle like a truck or someone towing a trailer
Edited by hugoagogo on Saturday 16th June 23:07
vonhosen said:
whoami said:
vonhosen said:
It's at the discretion of the officer.
Very helpful. You can't make them, the decision on action to be taken is theirs.
Yes, the decision was theirs - that is pretty obvious.
The OP was asking whether - assuming that everything happened as described - the penalty made sense.
In light of the fact that in the UK more than two million people will receive points for harmless technical offences this year, including doing 65 on open, empty roads, getting caught out at box junctions, and, we can well expect, sipping water whilst stopped at a red light, the thought that an incompetent driver could ram into the back of two stationary vehicles on a slip road and get off with a refresher course seems simply outrageous.
Did the guilty driver at least express concern and remorse to your mum? An offer of compensation, even in the form of assistance around the house or a contribution to a charity, would seem to be the least that was in order.
How times change.
I was convicted for 'due care + attention' (1991) on the testimony of a driver that T boned me in a TWOCed car when I was using a filter light and he jumped a red. My word against his and the court knew he was driving without a driving licence.
OK you are hearing it from my perspective but not only was I pursued for this when the police had all the facts at their disposal but also the court saw fit to convict on a word against word basis where the other party was done for multiple offences. And left the scene of the accident giving false particulars. They never heard about the threatening phone calls either.
And just to add insult to insult......they had to ask for my driving licence back because they
ed up the endorsement.
Appeal? Turned down for legal aid because it was seen as too petty.
Faith in our system of law 'n' order?
About -5.
I was convicted for 'due care + attention' (1991) on the testimony of a driver that T boned me in a TWOCed car when I was using a filter light and he jumped a red. My word against his and the court knew he was driving without a driving licence.
OK you are hearing it from my perspective but not only was I pursued for this when the police had all the facts at their disposal but also the court saw fit to convict on a word against word basis where the other party was done for multiple offences. And left the scene of the accident giving false particulars. They never heard about the threatening phone calls either.
And just to add insult to insult......they had to ask for my driving licence back because they
ed up the endorsement.Appeal? Turned down for legal aid because it was seen as too petty.
Faith in our system of law 'n' order?
About -5.
vonhosen said:
hugoagogo said:
stopping on a slip road
He couldn't safely get into lane 1 according to the OP.You have to give way to traffic already on the motorway where you can't do so.
MT(E&W)R regs 7(1),9,10 & 16 & MT(S)R regs 6(1),8,9 & 14
My understanding of incidents like this is, if the police do decide to charge the driver, the most likely outcome would be "Resolved by civil remedy"
Basically it means that the case would never see the light of day as the CPS or PF would not proceed with the case as the cost of the accident(financially) to the guilty party and his insurance company would far outway any criminal conviction gained by going through the courts.
I may be wrong, but i have seen similar incidents in the past with persons charged with Sect 3 RTA 1988
Basically it means that the case would never see the light of day as the CPS or PF would not proceed with the case as the cost of the accident(financially) to the guilty party and his insurance company would far outway any criminal conviction gained by going through the courts.
I may be wrong, but i have seen similar incidents in the past with persons charged with Sect 3 RTA 1988
planetdave said:
Interesting interpretation.
How about
'give priority to traffic already on the carriageway'?
[edit]since the word 'priotity' has no place in this thread [/edit]
we can't go around 'interpreting' thingsHow about
'give priority to traffic already on the carriageway'?
[edit]since the word 'priotity' has no place in this thread [/edit]
Edited by planetdave on Saturday 16th June 23:27
the law is the law! you MUST NOT stop!
seriously though, if you have to stop, your driving is at fault
hugoagogo said:
vonhosen said:
hugoagogo said:
stopping on a slip road
He couldn't safely get into lane 1 according to the OP.You have to give way to traffic already on the motorway where you can't do so.
MT(E&W)R regs 7(1),9,10 & 16 & MT(S)R regs 6(1),8,9 & 14
You stop on it because you have to.
It's the same on the slip road.
You have to give priority to the established traffic on the motorway if there is no safe gap for you. You can't barge your way on.
Rule 233 Highway Code.
hugoagogo said:
the law is the law! you MUST NOT stop!
seriously though, if you have to stop, your driving is at fault
If there is no gap, there is no gap. Simple as that.seriously though, if you have to stop, your driving is at fault
What would you suggest the horse box driver do, pull straight out and force the other traffic out of the way?
p.s. ever noticed those give way markings at the bottom of slip roads? There are telling you to give way.
To the best of my knowledge the at fault driver showed no remorse. They have not contacted the house, no sorry, no nothing. But then I don't think Bib informed them of my mothers hospital stay.
With respect to the bib on this forum, I think Traffic cops are so used to people trying it on, faking neck pain etc. for compensation, seeing OP off to hospital neck and back immobilised waiting x-ray is almost normal and perhaps this is why they not taking the approach I would in there position.
Said PC did ring the house asked to speak to mother, I did inform him she was still in hospital and was only removed from her immobilising neck brace set-up a few hours earlier some (22 hours after the crash), and the doctors had only just decided the damage to her neck was not the dangerous full fracture they had originally thought. "Oh" he said, and followed with "that's good, no lasting injuries then" and went on about the benefits of previously discussed improvement course and how it was better than points etc. as points dont make people better drivers and the course does. I voiced my opinion again, far more diplomatically this time, but he seems not to budge. Also haven't heard from him since so weather he knows/cares she is now out of hospital is unknown.
With respect to the bib on this forum, I think Traffic cops are so used to people trying it on, faking neck pain etc. for compensation, seeing OP off to hospital neck and back immobilised waiting x-ray is almost normal and perhaps this is why they not taking the approach I would in there position.
Said PC did ring the house asked to speak to mother, I did inform him she was still in hospital and was only removed from her immobilising neck brace set-up a few hours earlier some (22 hours after the crash), and the doctors had only just decided the damage to her neck was not the dangerous full fracture they had originally thought. "Oh" he said, and followed with "that's good, no lasting injuries then" and went on about the benefits of previously discussed improvement course and how it was better than points etc. as points dont make people better drivers and the course does. I voiced my opinion again, far more diplomatically this time, but he seems not to budge. Also haven't heard from him since so weather he knows/cares she is now out of hospital is unknown.
In my force area, the decision as to whether to offer a DIS or to prosecute for due care is not the decision of the reporting Officer. The Officer can recommend DIS, but it's not their decision. The ultimate decision is made by the central accident processing unit. They will generally go along with the Officer's recommendations, but I have known them to go against them and summons a driver.
To qualify for DIS, the driver has to have committed an offence under S3 of the road traffic act (due care) only, i.e. no additional document offences, construction and use offences etc.
The DIS is widely believed to be a better option for drivers who have suffered a momentary lapse in concentration, as it is aimed at improving these drivers observation and planning skills in order to try to prevent them from having further similar accidents. I think it's a fair argument - slapping 6 points on someone's licence may make their insurance premium go up, but it won't improve their driving skills, and there is convincing evidence to suggest that if you've had a particular type of accident (a rear-end shunt for instance), then you're far more likely to have another similar accident in the next couple of years.
In addition to the rule that due care has to be the only offence committed, there are a couple of other provisos. You can't have two DISs - if you've had one and you commit a further S3 offence, then you'll be prosecuted for the second offence. The other is that there has to be sufficient evidence that you've committed the offence, including (in my force at least) an admission of fault from the driver.
To the OP I'd say, first of all, that I understand why you're concerned by the Officers actions, but a driver improvement scheme isn't an easy option, and the cost of the course is usually on equal terms with the level of fine that the driver would normally get if summonsed to the Magistrates Court. The other driver will also have to have admitted liability for the accident, so there shouldn't be any delays in the insurance claim process caused by magistrates court trials. The level of injury (although important to you and your mum) isn't usually a deciding factor in the process - the offence is one of driving at an unacceptably low standard, and the outcome isn't actually relevant (although DISs shouldn't be offered in fatal accident cases). The course that the offending driver will have to attend will address their issues of inattentiveness and carelessness, and will hopefully make them far less likely to have a similar accident in the future.
To qualify for DIS, the driver has to have committed an offence under S3 of the road traffic act (due care) only, i.e. no additional document offences, construction and use offences etc.
The DIS is widely believed to be a better option for drivers who have suffered a momentary lapse in concentration, as it is aimed at improving these drivers observation and planning skills in order to try to prevent them from having further similar accidents. I think it's a fair argument - slapping 6 points on someone's licence may make their insurance premium go up, but it won't improve their driving skills, and there is convincing evidence to suggest that if you've had a particular type of accident (a rear-end shunt for instance), then you're far more likely to have another similar accident in the next couple of years.
In addition to the rule that due care has to be the only offence committed, there are a couple of other provisos. You can't have two DISs - if you've had one and you commit a further S3 offence, then you'll be prosecuted for the second offence. The other is that there has to be sufficient evidence that you've committed the offence, including (in my force at least) an admission of fault from the driver.
To the OP I'd say, first of all, that I understand why you're concerned by the Officers actions, but a driver improvement scheme isn't an easy option, and the cost of the course is usually on equal terms with the level of fine that the driver would normally get if summonsed to the Magistrates Court. The other driver will also have to have admitted liability for the accident, so there shouldn't be any delays in the insurance claim process caused by magistrates court trials. The level of injury (although important to you and your mum) isn't usually a deciding factor in the process - the offence is one of driving at an unacceptably low standard, and the outcome isn't actually relevant (although DISs shouldn't be offered in fatal accident cases). The course that the offending driver will have to attend will address their issues of inattentiveness and carelessness, and will hopefully make them far less likely to have a similar accident in the future.
R_U_LOCAL said:
In my force area, the decision as to whether to offer a DIS or to prosecute for due care is not the decision of the reporting Officer. The Officer can recommend DIS, but it's not their decision. The ultimate decision is made by the central accident processing unit. They will generally go along with the Officer's recommendations, but I have known them to go against them and summons a driver.
To qualify for DIS, the driver has to have committed an offence under S3 of the road traffic act (due care) only, i.e. no additional document offences, construction and use offences etc.
The DIS is widely believed to be a better option for drivers who have suffered a momentary lapse in concentration, as it is aimed at improving these drivers observation and planning skills in order to try to prevent them from having further similar accidents. I think it's a fair argument - slapping 6 points on someone's licence may make their insurance premium go up, but it won't improve their driving skills, and there is convincing evidence to suggest that if you've had a particular type of accident (a rear-end shunt for instance), then you're far more likely to have another similar accident in the next couple of years.
In addition to the rule that due care has to be the only offence committed, there are a couple of other provisos. You can't have two DISs - if you've had one and you commit a further S3 offence, then you'll be prosecuted for the second offence. The other is that there has to be sufficient evidence that you've committed the offence, including (in my force at least) an admission of fault from the driver.
To the OP I'd say, first of all, that I understand why you're concerned by the Officers actions, but a driver improvement scheme isn't an easy option, and the cost of the course is usually on equal terms with the level of fine that the driver would normally get if summonsed to the Magistrates Court. The other driver will also have to have admitted liability for the accident, so there shouldn't be any delays in the insurance claim process caused by magistrates court trials. The level of injury (although important to you and your mum) isn't usually a deciding factor in the process - the offence is one of driving at an unacceptably low standard, and the outcome isn't actually relevant (although DISs shouldn't be offered in fatal accident cases). The course that the offending driver will have to attend will address their issues of inattentiveness and carelessness, and will hopefully make them far less likely to have a similar accident in the future.
Thanks for the explanation.To qualify for DIS, the driver has to have committed an offence under S3 of the road traffic act (due care) only, i.e. no additional document offences, construction and use offences etc.
The DIS is widely believed to be a better option for drivers who have suffered a momentary lapse in concentration, as it is aimed at improving these drivers observation and planning skills in order to try to prevent them from having further similar accidents. I think it's a fair argument - slapping 6 points on someone's licence may make their insurance premium go up, but it won't improve their driving skills, and there is convincing evidence to suggest that if you've had a particular type of accident (a rear-end shunt for instance), then you're far more likely to have another similar accident in the next couple of years.
In addition to the rule that due care has to be the only offence committed, there are a couple of other provisos. You can't have two DISs - if you've had one and you commit a further S3 offence, then you'll be prosecuted for the second offence. The other is that there has to be sufficient evidence that you've committed the offence, including (in my force at least) an admission of fault from the driver.
To the OP I'd say, first of all, that I understand why you're concerned by the Officers actions, but a driver improvement scheme isn't an easy option, and the cost of the course is usually on equal terms with the level of fine that the driver would normally get if summonsed to the Magistrates Court. The other driver will also have to have admitted liability for the accident, so there shouldn't be any delays in the insurance claim process caused by magistrates court trials. The level of injury (although important to you and your mum) isn't usually a deciding factor in the process - the offence is one of driving at an unacceptably low standard, and the outcome isn't actually relevant (although DISs shouldn't be offered in fatal accident cases). The course that the offending driver will have to attend will address their issues of inattentiveness and carelessness, and will hopefully make them far less likely to have a similar accident in the future.
Perhaps one's sense of inequality of penalties should be based not on the thought that this particular driver was insufficiently punished, but rather on the thought that the hundreds of thousands of drivers who get points and fines for their momentary lapses of concentration regarding the speed limit are treated too harshly.
Cheers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff